your opinion on this subject, as to the extent to which this power should be given. Would your association favor giving the Commission the power to establish rates?

Mr. ADAMS. I think we would, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would your association be in favor of giving the Interstate Commerce Commission power to issue a writ of mandamus, a writ of injunction, and issue a judgment against railway property? Mr. ADAMS. I am not prepared to answer that question.

Mr. ADAMSON. Or would your association be in favor of giving the Commission power to punish for contempt by confinement?

Mr. ADAMS. I do not know.

Mr. MANN. Are you in favor of establishing the Commission a court?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANN. There ought to be an appeal from their decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. ADAMS. There you have an interminable situation again.

Mr. ADAMSON. Suppose that some time the railroads should get a majority of the Commission?

Mr. ADAMS. That is the difficulty we are confronted with. A year ago our committee asked the railroad committee if they would abide by the decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission if we should bring a suit before the Commission and get a decision, and they intimated that if the decision pleased them they would comply with it readily.

The CHAIRMAN. That is probably about what the Lumber Dealers' Association would do if I went and complained that their rates were a little too high and proposed to arbitrate it by some gentleman I selected. You probably would say, if it pleased you, you would abide by the decision.

Mr. ADAMS. When we have an arbitration, we always sign up an agreement beforehand to abide by the decision.

Mr. MANN. There is ample authority in the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce the law forbidding a larger charge for a short haul than a longer haul.

Mr. ADAMS. We thought it sufficient in the first instance, but when we came to look into it our attorneys advised us that it was doubtful. Mr. MANN. I think you want to get new attorneys instead of coming to Congress on that point. There may be other things in the law which are objectionable

Mr. ADAMS. We employed what we supposed to be the leading attorney in the State of Kansas.

Mr. RICHARDSON. What steps did the attorney take under this statement of facts?

Mr. ADAMS. It was only in a justice of the peace court that we could get a decision in our favor.

Mr. RICHARDSON. And you would not apply to the courts to enforce the interstate-commerce law?

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir; only under the common law where they made an overcharge in freights against some receiver of lumber.

Mr. RICHARDSON. And in each case you got a decision before the justice of the peace against the railroads?

Mr. ADAMS. We did not carry the case through. When the railroads found we were doing that to annoy them-they thought it

would be a great annoyance to them-they offered to compromise, and our committee at that time agreed on a temporary compromise with the railroads as far as the western half of the State of Kansas was concerned. By that compromise we saved to the receivers of lumber, or the people, as you might say, because it amounts to the same thing, over $75,000 a year for the western half of the State of Kansas. That would indicate that there was a grievance, and that they admitted it, or they never would have allowed such a concession as that. They had arbitrarily raised the rates on lumber from 1 to 5 cents a hundred pounds, which is a very unusual proceeding, and which we thought was entirely unwarranted.

Mr. MANN. Would you be willing to submit to the committee the actual cases?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. Burkholder, who was intending to be here this morning, has a brief prepared and an argument. He intended to submit the case.

The CHAIRMAN. Will he submit that brief to us?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will submit that to us we will be glad to go over it.

Mr. ADAMS. We will.

Mr. Evans has suggested that I read a little section in the President's message:

In 1887 a measure was enacted for the regulation of interstate railways, commonly known as the interstate-commerce act. The cardinal provisions of that act were that railway rates should be just and reasonable and that all shippers, localities, and commodities should be accorded equal treatment. A commission was created and endowed with what were supposed to be the necessary powers to execute the provisions of this act.

But he goes on to say that that supposition was not a reality.

The CHAIRMAN. The President evidently did not mean to say that anybody supposed that the Commission had power or that it would supplement the functions of the courts. There were some persons who thought that the Commission had powers that the Supreme Court said it did not have, but no one has ever said, I think, authoritatively that the courts have not power to punish for discriminations and to punish for the violation of what is popularly known as the "short and long haul clause." The courts have power. The difficulty has always been-and I have often heard discussions of the matter-the finding of proof, that they can not substantiate the facts of the discriminations or of the violations of the long and short haul clause. But here you gentlemen say you have those proofs. If you have, I will show you the law is ample and that you can bring the suits you want with certainty of beating the offenders.

Mr. ADAMS. But it will be very humiliating.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not suppose you want any special legislation for your particular business or to expedite the courts in your particular instances. The laws that the rest of us can live under you people ought to be able to get along with.

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

We thank you very much for your attention, and we will submit the brief and argument.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will file with the committee the brief we will be very glad to have it.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN B. DAISH.

Mr. DAISH. Answering more fully the question of the chairman concerning the relative amount of freight paid on hay and grain in official classification territory, it appeared in the evidence in the case of the National Hay Association against the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway et al. before the Interstate Commerce Commission, from the testimony of Mr. Grammar, traffic manager of the road named, that for the nine months ending October 1, 1901, the average weight of a large number of cars of hay on his road was 21,800 pounds, and the average weight of grain, 49,600 pounds. An exhibit filed by Mr. Grammar showed that the averages of weight, distances, and earnings per ton per mile was as follows:

Now this statement coming from the carriers shows that a car of grain containing about two and one-half times the weight of a car of hay, traveled one-quarter further, had an average earning of onequarter more, and a per ton per mile rate of one-half when compared with hay. It would not be strictly accurate to suppose that these cars move from Chicago to New York, but as the distance is well known, a valuable comparison can be made on this supposition. Twenty-one thousand eight hundred pounds of hay, or an average carload, moving at fifth-class rates between these points, would produce a freight per car of $65.40; 49,600 pounds of grain, moving on a commodity rate, which in August, 1901, was 15 cents per hundred, would produce an earning per car of $74.40. This would, apparently, show that the earnings per car were greater on grain than on hay, particularly if one should listen to what we hear occasionally about earnings per car, but when the defendants were asked on cross-examination why a flat car rate was not made instead of the present method of making a rate on 100 pounds, it was admitted that it was not only impracticable, but uncertain and difficult to make a rate on that basis.

When the attention of the carriers was called to the greater earnings per ton per mile for hay, it was stated that it was on account of the dead weight, meaning thereby the weight of the car, and the proportion that it bears to the total weight. In each instance the weight of the car is practically the same, and, of course, in each case it costs as much to move the empty car. An average car of to-day will weigh about 30,000 pounds, so that the total weight of the car and hay will be 51,800 pounds. This would pay from Chicago to New York $65.40, or an average of $2.52 per ton, gross weight of car and contents. A car loaded with grain will have a gross weight of 79,600 pounds, earning from Chicago to New York $74.40, being 1.86 per ton, gross weight on car and contents.

Referring to the figures which I have previously given, it will be seen that 26% tons of hay would produce a freight from Chicago to New York of $65.40; 40% tons of grain, $74.40; 281% tons of apples,

$78.60; 34% tons of potatoes, $99.60. It appeared in the evidence that the average engine tonnage is about 1,700 tons, so that taking the various figures which I have given, being statements made by the traffic officials, an engine could pull 53 cars of hay, producing an earning per train of $4,120.20; 41 cars of grain, producing an earning per train of $3,050.40; 58 cars of apples, producing an earning per train of $4,558.80; 49 cars of potatoes, producing an earning per train of $4,880.40. So that, independent of all other considerations, the statements of the carriers themselves would demonstrate that hay is a much better-paying freight than grain, and that it stands up pretty well with apples and potatoes, though the two latter are carried in small quantities as compared with hay, and are more or less perishable, requiring extra transportation facilities regarding time, special cars, and other matters.

One of the witnesses for the defendants was Mr. R. B. Mitchell, traffic manager of the Michigan Central Railroad, who gave figures which by the same process would show the revenue per train for grain to be $3,360 and for hay $4,320, making a discrepancy in favor of grain of $960 per train, or nearly 30 per cent more for a train load of hay than for a train load of grain. And yet it has been claimed that grain is one of the most profitable carrying commodities.

STATEMENT OF BUFFALO MERCHANTS' EXCHANGE.

The original interstate-commerce act has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in various cases so as to greatly restrict the powers of the Commission to effectively accomplish the results intended by such act. Bills have been introduced in the Senate and House, known as Senate bill No. 3575 and House bill No. 8337, which are identical, and having for their object to confer upon the Interstate Commerce Commission authority to make effective its administrative orders and giving to the defendants the right of appeal to the United States courts, and which continue to limit the authority of the Commission to the correction of rates when it appears after investigation that such rates are unreasonable and discriminative; and these bills also repeal the provision of the present interstate-commerce act relating to imprisonment for violation of said act, and in place thereof providing for fines to be imposed for violations thereof; these amendments we believe to be essential for the proper administration of the duties and purposes of the Interstate Commerce Commission: Now, therefore,

The Buffalo Merchants' Exchange urges upon the Interstate Commerce Committee of the Senate favorable consideration of Senate bill No. 3575, and upon the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House favorable consideration of House bill No. 8337, having for their purpose the amendment of the interstate-commerce act, to the end that favorable action may be taken thereon at this session of Congress; and that the secretary be directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the respective committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the Senators from the State of New York and the Representatives in Congress from the county of Erie, requesting their cooperation in securing such legislation.

A true copy.

J. HOWARD MASON, Secretary.

RESOLUTIONS OF PHILADELPHIA COMMERCIAL EXCHANGE. The COMMITTEEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: At a meeting of the transportation committee of the Commercial Exchange of Philadelphia, held Tuesday, April 29, 1902, the following preambles and resolution were unanimously adopted: "Whereas the necessity of such legislation as will give uniform inland freight rates to all shippers of like commodities and provide such penalty as will insure a full observance of the interstate commerce laws has long been apparent to every commercial locality; and "Whereas there are now pending before the Congress several bills of amendments, each possessing its respective merits: Therefore,

"Resolved, That we hereby respectfully petition the present Congress to pass such legislation as will bring to the commercial interests of this country the much-needed uniform inland rates and provide effective penalties against all violations of the laws, thus guaranteeing stability of rates to those whose business is dependent upon inland transportation."

Respectfully, yours,

ARMON D. ACHESON,

Secretary.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. CORWINE.

The Merchants' Association of New York, through its representative, William R. Corwine, indorses the bill now pending in Congress, known as the Corliss-Nelson bill, and respectfully urges the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives to report it favorably and advocate its passage. This bill will vest in the Interstate Commerce Commission the powers which the people of the country generally believed had been conferred upon that body when the original interstate commerce act was passed in 1887. Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in some of the cases which have come before it on appeal from decisions which have been made by the Commission, have shown to the public that, under the act creating the Commission, powers which were believed to have been vested in that body were not vested therein. This Commission, therefore, has no means by which it can enforce its decisions, and its decisions, therefore, are of no practical effect, either upon the shippers or carriers.

It was generally understood at the time the Commission was created that the United States, through the properly constituted legislative body, had reached the conclusion that the period had arrived when there should be some body which would stand between the carrier and shipper, and which could act as an arbiter in the questions of dispute naturally arising. This belief seems to have been wrongly founded. The Interstate Commerce Commission may issue its opinions or decisions, but they now amount to nothing more than propaganda, having no binding effect upon any person or corporation, either as shipper or carrier. It does serve a useful purpose in collating and publishing the statistics of the transportation interests of the country. These statis